United States District Court, D. South Carolina
December 8, 2014
Billy Lee Lisenby, Jr., #200273, Plaintiff,
Warden Tim Riley; Sgt. Groves; Grievance Clerk Lecumpt; Deputy Director Padula; Captain Barry Tucker; DHO Turner; Counsel Substitute of Tyger River CI; and Ann Hallman, Defendants.
DAVID C. NORTON, District Judge.
The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that the complaint be partial dismissed without prejudice as to defendants Warden Tim Riley, Deputy Director Padula and Ann Hallman.
This court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the magistrate judge's report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, absent prompt objection by a dissatisfied party, it appears that Congress did not intend for the district court to review the factual and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge. Thomas v Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Additionally, any party who fails to file timely, written objections to the magistrate judge's report pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to raise those objections at the appellate court level. United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1208 (1984). No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
A de novo review of the record indicates that the magistrate judge's report accurately summarizes this case and the applicable law. Accordingly, the magistrate judge's report and recommendation is AFFIRMED, and the complaint is partially DISMISSED without prejudice as to defendants Riley, Padula and Hallman.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.